Open Food Facts Silagic Silagic Rouge Gluco-chondro Buvable - Flacon · Nutrisiq

Open Food Facts Silagic Silagic Rouge Gluco-chondro Buvable - Flacon packshot

Nutrition snapshot

Open Food Facts Silagic Silagic Rouge Gluco-chondro Buvable - Flacon

Name: Open Food Facts Silagic Silagic Rouge Gluco-chondro Buvable - Flacon
Brand: Open Food Facts
SKU: 3401565042042

Nutrition scoring is unavailable because core nutrient evidence is incomplete.

Nutrition score

—

/100

Nutrition interpretation

Signal unavailable

Nutrition scoring is unavailable because core nutrient evidence is incomplete.

Help improve this record

Improve product data

Explore alternatives More from Open Food Facts Suggest correction

Signal classes

Need attention

Core nutrient evidence is incomplete, so the nutrition score is unavailable.

What would improve the assessment

Nutrition scoring needs a fuller nutrient panel, especially energy, sugars, saturated fat, sodium or salt, and fiber.

Need attention

Ingredient evidence is too limited to classify processing reliably.

What would improve the assessment

Processing classification needs a fuller ingredient list and any declared NOVA information.

Need attention

Mandatory field coverage is only partial (38%).

Uncertain or missing data

The record is missing an ingredient list.
The record is missing a nutrition panel.

Need attention

Environmental data coverage is too weak for a reliable indicator.

What would improve the assessment

Environmental indication needs more packaging, origin, or declared environmental metadata.

Structured source data

Facts used for scoring

Design

CategoryFood

Label information quality60/100

Data confidence

Ownership

Processing

Insufficient evidence

Environmental signalSuppressed

Performance

Nutrition scoreInsufficient evidence

Ingredient-level explanation

Ingredients text is not available for this product. Confidence and processing remain cautious because ingredient evidence is missing.

Food score panel

Five-layer evaluation

Each dimension stays separate so the product can score well in one area and weakly in another without hiding trade-offs.

Nutrition score

—

/100

Nutrition profile

No nutrition score

No reliable assessment

label quality is the strongest signal right now, while label quality needs the most caution.

Strongest area

Label quality

Weakest area

Label quality

Data confidence

medium

Data confidence

Data confidence 66/100

Medium reliability

Data coverage is partial and the interpretation carries moderate confidence.

Confidence layer

Category breakdown

How the separate signals line up

The data does not support a reliable overall result.

Nutrition profile

No reliable assessment

—

Nutrition score is unavailable because core nutrient evidence is incomplete.

Processing

Processing unknown

Insufficient evidence

—

Processing indicator is unavailable because ingredient evidence is too limited.

Environmental signal

No reliable assessment

—

Environmental signal is unavailable because metadata are too sparse.

Label quality

Quite good

60/100

Label quality reflects completeness and consistency of the record, not nutrition quality.

How is the score built?

Open the methodology note

Nutrition score measures nutrient profile only. Processing, environment, label quality, and data confidence stay separate so missing data or formulation signals do not silently change nutrition quality.

The data is partial. The interpretation is usable but some conclusions may be refined.

Score drivers

What shaped the separate signals

Supports the assessment

No clear positive highlights emerged from the available data.
Impact: low

Pulls the score down

Mandatory field coverage is only partial (38%).
Impact: medium

Uncertain area

Core nutrient evidence is incomplete, so the nutrition score is unavailable.
Impact: high
Ingredient evidence is too limited to classify processing reliably.
Impact: high
Environmental data coverage is too weak for a reliable indicator.
Impact: high

Some source data is incomplete for this product: energy per 100g, sugars per 100g, saturated fat per 100g, sodium per 100g or salt per 100g, ingredients or ingredients, NOVA group, category, packaging, origin, or ingredients, quantity, category, ingredients, nutrition panel, and allergens. Scores stay visible, but weaker evidence is reflected in the confidence dimension.

Signal classes

Need attention

Core nutrient evidence is incomplete, so the nutrition score is unavailable.

What would improve the assessment

Nutrition scoring needs a fuller nutrient panel, especially energy, sugars, saturated fat, sodium or salt, and fiber.

Need attention

Ingredient evidence is too limited to classify processing reliably.

What would improve the assessment

Processing classification needs a fuller ingredient list and any declared NOVA information.

Need attention

Mandatory field coverage is only partial (38%).

Uncertain or missing data

The record is missing an ingredient list.
The record is missing a nutrition panel.

Need attention

Environmental data coverage is too weak for a reliable indicator.

What would improve the assessment

Environmental indication needs more packaging, origin, or declared environmental metadata.

Structured source data

Facts used for scoring

Design

CategoryFood

Label information quality60/100

Data confidence

Ownership

Processing

Insufficient evidence

Environmental signalSuppressed

Performance

Nutrition scoreInsufficient evidence

Ingredient-level explanation

Ingredients text is not available for this product. Confidence and processing remain cautious because ingredient evidence is missing.

Food score panel

Five-layer evaluation

Each dimension stays separate so the product can score well in one area and weakly in another without hiding trade-offs.

Nutrition score

—

/100

Nutrition profile

No nutrition score

No reliable assessment

label quality is the strongest signal right now, while label quality needs the most caution.

Strongest area

Label quality

Weakest area

Label quality

Data confidence

medium

Data confidence

Data confidence 66/100

Medium reliability

Data coverage is partial and the interpretation carries moderate confidence.

Confidence layer

Category breakdown

How the separate signals line up

The data does not support a reliable overall result.

Nutrition profile

No reliable assessment

—

Nutrition score is unavailable because core nutrient evidence is incomplete.

Processing

Processing unknown

Insufficient evidence

—

Processing indicator is unavailable because ingredient evidence is too limited.

Environmental signal

No reliable assessment

—

Environmental signal is unavailable because metadata are too sparse.

Label quality

Quite good

60/100

Label quality reflects completeness and consistency of the record, not nutrition quality.

How is the score built?

Open the methodology note

The data is partial. The interpretation is usable but some conclusions may be refined.

Score drivers

What shaped the separate signals

Supports the assessment

No clear positive highlights emerged from the available data.
Impact: low

Pulls the score down

Mandatory field coverage is only partial (38%).
Impact: medium

Uncertain area

Core nutrient evidence is incomplete, so the nutrition score is unavailable.
Impact: high
Ingredient evidence is too limited to classify processing reliably.
Impact: high
Environmental data coverage is too weak for a reliable indicator.
Impact: high

Open Food Facts Silagic Silagic Rouge Gluco-chondro Buvable - Flacon

Nutrient profile

Need attention

What would improve the assessment

Processing level

Need attention

What would improve the assessment

Label quality

Need attention

Uncertain or missing data

Environmental signal

Need attention

What would improve the assessment

Facts used for scoring

Design

Ownership

Performance

Five-layer evaluation

No nutrition score

How the separate signals line up

What shaped the separate signals

Open Food Facts Silagic Silagic Rouge Gluco-chondro Buvable - Flacon

Nutrient profile

Need attention

What would improve the assessment

Processing level

Need attention

What would improve the assessment

Label quality

Need attention

Uncertain or missing data

Environmental signal

Need attention

What would improve the assessment

Facts used for scoring

Design

Ownership

Performance

Five-layer evaluation

No nutrition score

How the separate signals line up

What shaped the separate signals

What lowers the rating

Lapse vaate riskisignaalid